The Rem Nitro Mag or Nitro Steel are a straight wall hull with a yellow base wad. They do not load the same as the STS. However, there is an Rem Express hull that has the high brass and green plastic tube that is a unibody type tapered hull that loads the same as the STS. So which hull do you have that you are wanting to load?

kenner wrote:Anyone have a 1400+ load for 1-1/8oz steel, using Steel powder in a 2-3/4" Fed paper-base/Top Gun, or Cheddite hull?

Thanks! Ken

10gaOakies HG load is a Ched load that fits your bill. I'm betting if you put 32 or 33 grains of steel powder in a Fed PBW hull, fed209a, and a sam wad you'll be fine. Other wads could build more pressure, I'm betting someone on here has played with 1 1/8th loads in Fed PBW hulls and will ring in.

"The old school hunters shoot what they shoot and kill as many as they always have, the newbies have their 3.5."

Any of the paper base wad hulls have less volume than the ched hull. The first problem you run into when trying to use these lower volume hulls is the components fitting. The HG load is a tight fit to begin with. As it is, I run my crimps a little on the shallow side for correct fit. I wish I could get a tad deeper crimps but I cant and this is with the larger volume ched hulls. Of the hulls that I have found other than Cheds for that 1 1/8oz load are these.....Mirage, Kemen, Rio, Diana, purple Fiocchi and orange Nobel Sport. With these (other) hulls, I have to drop the pellet count four or five pellets to get a good crimp. Some of these other hulls are six point crimps too.There are diff varieties of these (other) hulls too that have different volumes other than the large volume. The best bet for not running into these variations in volume is to stick with the Cheddite hulls.Also if you try switching wads to a VP or RSI this will make fitting the load even harder.

kenner wrote:I thought the Fed PBW/Top Gun had less volume than Chris's Cheddite HG load...??? You don't think there'd be a pressure issue?

Chris beat me to some of the infoThere is less volume, so 32 or maybe 33, not sure. Paper Base Wads run lower pressures as a rule and the Sam wads run low pressure also. So that would be the combo I'd try.

If you drop 5-6 grains of powder, you should be able to fit an extra 1/8th of shot in.I might load it up for fun later tonight if I get time.Actually, looking back through my book, I've shot same components using 34 grains and 470 grains of shot. I remember it just fit. so, I think 32 and 492 would work, depending on shot size, bigger will use more volume.Do you have a chrono to check your loads?

"The old school hunters shoot what they shoot and kill as many as they always have, the newbies have their 3.5."

Something else I have learned. If building a 492gr load it going to take the largest volume hull you can get your hands on. In my case, thats the ched hull. When using a smaller volume hull such as a paper bw Fed hull, 470gr is going to be your largest payload with this hull. All of this is when using #2s as I dont load #3s or #4s now days. Using the smaller pellet would change all this giving your more room.I am intending to build a new load based on the Rem Nitro Steel hull with yellow plastic basewad. This is a straight wall hull which offers a large volume compared to other Rem hulls. However its not as large of a volume as the Ched hull. Loading it, 470gr of #2s is as large as I can go for a payload size. No doubt I could get 492gr in there if I wanted to use #4s.

Its all in volume. The Ched hull has just a tad more than the Active. You will loose a little pressure and a little velocity but not enough to mention. Do the salt test on both of these hulls for comparison. You will see they are almost identical in volume. They are both straight wall hulls. The Activ is a unibody and the Ched is plastic base wad which both hull is volume is equal, they will develop the same pressure. A paper base wad hull will develop less pressure if volume is equal but thats another story and doesnt pertain to these two hulls. Also, I know the Ched hull is a much stronger hull than the Activ which is a plus.

I didnt say anything about buckling. I was speaking of the Activ hulls not holding together on firing. I remember way back when guys were having problems with max loads and the Activ hulls splitting or changing shape and causing jams. Myself, I never had a single problem, maybe I was not loading them as hot as those other guys???

I've noticed you dont get as many firings from them, sometimes crimps split after 3 loadings, some of my loads might be a little hot. RSI 69 is averaging 1553fps over my chrony, I'm a little concerned about pressure but it patterns well, see how it performs on ducks. Haven't had a case split yet.

"The old school hunters shoot what they shoot and kill as many as they always have, the newbies have their 3.5."

Ya never know what others are basing their reports on about hulls not holding up either. The number of firings could have been the reason they were having problems with the Activ hull who knows. I still have both new and once fired Actives but I never use them anymore as there is no need when I have plenty of cheds which I feel more confortable using.

A Cheddite (what) with a RSI wad? The only thing that will cause blowby with a given hull is shooting them in an over bore barrel. Such as a 835 mossy. Why do you want to use a Ched primer with that load? Most likely you will loose 100fps when switching primers like you said.

Over decoys ? I use the HG load of 2's and it looks good out to 50 yds . The tapered hulls with 1 oz are for over decoys . If you load 3's in them , patterns are wonderful out to 40 + yds so , I don't need anymore than 1500 fps with these . I'mdetermined to load a good load of 1's in the Active and Rio hulls , possibly Buffered ???? ANY help there would be appreciated ?

3200I few years back, I switched from hunting marsh lakes that were surrounded by willow trees which pretty much cut the windy conditions. I changed to hunting open water so my load had to change and I could no longer shoot 4s. Season had already started and I didnt have time to work up a load with #1s so I switched to factory 3" Kents which was a 1 1/4oz load of #1s. That load worked splendid on both big ducks and geese that year. After that season was over, I was determined to develop a load that equaled that factory Kent load as I liked it so much. Upon pattern testing, the load was giving me 92 hits out of 129 pellets which was a 71% pattern at 45 yards using a really tight .685 choke. Then I developed the load to duplicate it which was also a 1 1/4oz load of #1s at 1475fps. I making the load, I used the same components as the factory load which was a Ched hull, Ched primer, B&P wad plus a rto crimp. Only I surpassed the performance of the factory Kents with this new handload which gave me 97% patterns at 45 yards with the same choke. I will share that load with you and its possible to modify it to a folded crimp load too. Ever since I got on track using the same components that Kent uses, I have been a step ahead of the game it seems in my testing. Thus, I intend to stick with using ched hulls, ched primers and B&P wads which is exactly what Kent uses.Let me know if thats the kind of load you want using #1s. By the way, dont bother trying to use buffer with #1s, its wasted effort.